FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
At a vacant house (“Number 17”), a detective (John Stuart) runs into a Cockney hobo (Leon M. Lion), a plucky girl (Ann Casson), and a gang of thieves searching for a missing diamond necklace.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Hitchcock Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Play Adaptations
• Thieves and Criminals

Review:
Alfred Hitchcock’s self-described “quota quickie” (his last film made for British International Pictures) has been alternately criticized by reviewers as full of “half-baked plotting”, and lauded as a “magnificent specimen of pure cinema”. Neither assessment is entirely accurate, but together they touch upon both the film’s frustratingly murky script, and Hitchcock’s undeniably brilliant visual style. It’s well-known that Hitchcock was a fan of long sequences without words, and the opening shots in Number Seventeen — an atmospheric introduction to the titular “old dark house” — fit this description, with enormous shadows and unexpected run-ins effectively setting the stage for a plot full of secrets. Unfortunately, the source material (a stagy play, which Hitchcock finally “opens up” during the final train chase) leaves much to be desired. Its primary virtues — multiple mistaken identities and an enormous McGuffin — are also its downfall, as it’s difficult to keep track of the comings and goings of all the disparate characters. Nonetheless, unlike in Hitch’s oddly generic Jamaica Inn (1939), there are enough Hitchcockian elements here — including a decidedly black sense of humor — to satisfy diehard fans. It’s definitely worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Highly expressionistic lighting — particularly in the opening sequences
  
• The exciting final train chase
  
• Several “Hitchcockian” touches of humor — as when the camera flashes briefly on a roadside sign as a hijacked bus goes roaring by at breakneck speeds
  
• A surprise ending

Must See?
No, but Hitchcock fans will certainly be curious to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When Valient Tobacco Company offers $25 million to any city willing to stop smoking for 30 days, the economically depressed town of Eagle Rock (pop: 4,006) — led by Reverend Clayton Brooks (Dick van Dyke) — takes on the challenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• Comedy
• Media Spectacle
• Small Town America

Review:
This all-star comedy — directed and co-written by Norman Lear of “All in the Family” fame — is a rare treat: an unapologetic spoof with more chuckles than groans, and plenty of incisive commentary on subjects as diverse as corporate corruption, nicotine addiction, personal will versus collective imposition, and the mass media. Although the story starts to lose a bit of steam once Eagle Rock turns into a tourist haven, it’s remarkably funny until then, with Lear perfectly capturing the insanity of what might happen if hundreds upon thousands of addicted smokers were asked to quit “cold turkey” overnight.

There are many noteworthy performances throughout the film, and it’s fun to see so many familiar T.V. faces together in one flick. Dick van Dyke is perfectly cast as the self-serving pastor who engineers the entire project; I like the way he re-addicts himself to cigarettes in order to bond with his “flock”. In addition, his interactions with his cowed wife (Pippa Scott, reminiscent of Carrie Snodgress in Diary of a Mad Housewife) are quite amusing. My two favorite performances, however, are Barbara Cason as a schoolteacher whose patience towards her students is immediately thinned once she stops smoking, and Tom Poston as a wealthy lush who recognizes that the only option he has is to skip town for the month (his explanatory monologue is priceless). Less enjoyable (surprisingly enough) is Jean Stapleton as the mayor’s wife (her performance is one-note), and, through no fault of his own, beloved character actor Edward Everett Horton (in his final role) as Valiant Tobacco’s aging tycoon — it’s frustrating that he’s never allowed to speak.

Note: This would, naturally, make an excellent double feature with the more recent satire Thank You For Smoking (2005).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Dick Van Dyke as Reverend Brooks
  
• Pippa Scott as the Reverend’s put-upon wife
  
• Tom Poston as the town’s self-aware lush:
  

  “The thing is, I can’t stop drinking, see? That’s just the thing about me — I can’t stop drinking.”

  

• Barbara Cason insisting that, because she went to bed at 11:30 rather than midnight, she’s “owed” an extra half hour of smoking
  
• Graham Jarvis as the stalwart leader of the Christopher Mott (a.k.a. John Birch) Society
  
• Bob Newhart as Valiant Tobacco’s smarmy idea-man
  
• Reverend Brooks’ reaction to hearing that sex — “naturally, only for married couples” — is an excellent substitute for smoking
  
• A hilarious depiction of collective nicotine withdrawal
  
• A consistently clever screenplay
  

Must See?
Yes. This enjoyable satire is an all around “good show”. Listed as a cult movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert Review

Synopsis:
When necrophilic Dr. Hichcock (Robert Fleyming) accidentally kills his first wife (Maria Teresa Vianello) by injecting her with too much anesthesia, he leaves home, returning 12 years later with a new wife, Cynthia (Barbara Steele). Cynthia soon believes that Margherita (Vianello) may be haunting the premises, and intent on killing her — but cannot get her husband to believe her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Steele Films
• Ghosts
• Horror
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• “No One Believes Me!”

Review:
This beloved, controversially-themed thriller — starring wide-eyed Barbara Steele, the lead in Mario Bava’s classic Black Sunday (1960) — is regarded by many as a staple of Italian gothic horror. As noted in Richard Scheib’s Moria review, however, it ultimately relies too heavily on genre cliches and moody atmosphere at the expense of both plot and character development. In particular, Dr. Hichcock’s motivations towards his new wife don’t make much sense, and eventually the story begins to feel like merely an exercise in spousal persecution, with strong echoes of Hitchcock’s Rebecca (1940) — probably an explicit homage, given the lead character’s name.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Robert Flemying as Bernard Hichcock
  
• Several effectively scary moments — as when Cynthia’s cries for help are muffled through the glass top of her coffin
  
• Atmospheric cinematography and production design
  
• A majestic musical score by Roman Vlad

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look for its status as a cult favorite.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• SciFilm Review
• Moria Review (spoilers alert)

Synopsis:
When residents near a Canadian military base blame its nuclear power plant as the cause of several recent murders, Major Jeff Cummings (Marshall Thompson) begins to investigate. Soon he suspects that a local professor (Kynaston Reeves) may know more than he’s letting on, and enlists the help of the professor’s pretty young assistant (Kim Parker) in learning more.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Atomic Energy
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Mutant Monsters
• Science Fiction

Review:
I’ll gladly join the chorus of critics (see links below) who wonder what Criterion was thinking in selecting this rather average B-level sci fi flick for DVD restoration: while it’s not awful, it never comes close to the quality of artistic accomplishment Criterion is generally known for marketing. Fiend Without a Face is essentially yet another iteration on the timely yet overused theme of nuclear paranoia — an iteration which unfortunately suffers from a host of issues, including merely serviceable or sub-par acting by most involved; a cliched romantic subplot; an overly didactic explanation (via flashbacks) of how the “fiends without faces” came into being; a corrupt scientific premise; and rather iffy stop-motion animation (at one point, a brain explodes, but it takes a split-second for the innards to start gushing out — enough to notice the delay). While it may be of interest to ’50s sci fi fans and/or fans of mutant monster flicks, Fiend is certainly not must-see viewing for most film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Kynaston Reeves as Professor Walgate
  
• Some gruesome special effects near the end of the film
  

Must See?
No. While inexplicably chosen for DVD restoration by Criterion, this only-slightly-above-average B-flick isn’t must-see viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• BadMovies.org Review
• DVD Savant Review
• British Horror Films Review

Synopsis:
When three schoolmates — spoiled Vivian (Ann Dvorak), hardworking Ruth (Bette Davis), and fun-loving Mary (Joan Blondell) — meet ten years after graduating, they light three cigarettes on one match, and their lives are changed forever.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ann Dvorak Films
• Bette Davis Films
• Character Arc
• Class Relations
• Downward Spiral
• Edward Arnold Films
• Humphrey Bogart Films
• Joan Blondell Films
• Kidnapping
• Mervyn LeRoy Films
• Warren William Films

Review:
Panned as “tedious and distasteful” by the New York Times upon its release, this taut Warner Brothers melodrama has gained more respect in recent years, lauded by critics for its “uncompromising script” and “raw direction”, and cited as “one of the best” of Warner’s “factory assembly line films [from] the early thirties”. The truth lies somewhere in between both extremes. While Three on a Match is certainly neither “tedious” nor “distasteful”, it’s also not particularly compelling. The first half hour (which, given its mere hour+ length, is half the movie itself) is rather inconsequential, with too much time spent establishing the stereotypical characters and their backgrounds; fortunately, things heat up once Dvorak’s character “goes bad”, and the narrative takes some unexpected twists and turns.

Three on a Match is most notable these days for clearly showing Dvorak as an unrepentant cocaine addict; she gives up her marriage and young child without compunction, swiping greedily at her nose like it itches — this is classic Pre-Code daring. More impressive than Dvorak, however, is Joan Blondell — it’s easy to see why she was touted (over mellow Davis, whose role is minor at best) as a rising star. Also of interest is charismatic Humphrey Bogart in a tiny yet unforgettable role as a kidnapping gangster; see below for his classic response to Dvorak’s young son.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Joan Blondell as Mary
  
• Humphrey Bogart in a small role as an utterly ruthless gangster:
  

Junior: Please don’t hurt my mommy!
Bogart (with a sneer): I’ll bear that in mind.

• Adorable Buster Phelps as curly-headed Junior (despite his substantial role in the film, he’s uncredited)
  
• The shocking finale
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for its daring Pre-Code content.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Three Movie Buffs Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
In 15th century England, the power-hungry Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone) — assisted by his loyal club-footed executioner (Boris Karloff) — attempts to murder his way to the throne.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Basil Rathbone Films
• Boris Karloff Films
• Historical Drama
• Ian Hunter Films
• Plot to Murder
• Royalty and Nobility
• Vincent Price Films

Review:
This atmospheric Shakespearean horror-drama — directed by Rowland V. Lee — is primarily notable for its featured performances by three of Universal’s best-known actors: Rathbone, Karloff, and Vincent Price (in one of his earliest roles). Each has at least one memorably creepy scene: Rathbone periodically visiting his “doll house” and reconfiguring the placement of figurines near the throne; Karloff meandering purposefully through “his” dungeon, pausing (for all the world like an artiste) to pile additional weight upon a tortured prisoner; Price laughing maniacally as he wrongly assumes that he can win a drinking bet with Rathbone. While critics at the time were bothered by the film’s cheeky mix of horror and costume drama, there’s something undeniably horrific about the Duke of Gloucester’s ruthless climb to power. As noted in TCM’s article, “The beauty of a film as diabolical as Tower of London is not [in] knowing who is going to die next, but [in] savoring each victim’s unorthodox journey from the castle to the grave”. Despite its obvious perks, being royalty in medieval Europe comes across here as unquestionably risky; after watching this film, it’s not something most viewers would wish upon themselves.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Basil Rathbone as “crookback” Richard
  
• Ian Hunter as blueblood-obsessed King Edward
  
• Vincent Price as the Duke of Clarence
  
• Boris Karloff as Richard’s loyal, club-footed executioner
  
• Rathbone continually returning to his “doll house” to remove “eliminated” royalty
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
  
• Fine production values
  

Must See?
Yes, as an all-around creepy-good show.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• At-a-Glance Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
Upon arriving at Jamaica Inn in Cornwall, an orphaned Irish woman (Maureen O’Hara) learns that her Uncle Joss (Leslie Banks) is part of a gang of criminals who loot shipwrecks — secretly orchestrated by mysterious Sir Humphrey Pengallan (Charles Laughton) — for monetary gain. When Mary (O’Hara) helps an undercover gang member (Robert Newton) escape with his life, her own is soon in danger — both from the rest of the criminals, and from nefarious Pengallan, who wants her as his very own “beautiful object”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Laughton Films
• Historical Drama
• Hitchcock Films
• Maureen O’Hara Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Robert Newton Films
• Thieves and Criminals
• Undercover Cops and Agents

Review:
It’s no secret that Alfred Hitchcock was only vaguely invested in this adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s gothic novel, his final British venture before moving to Hollywood. Frank Nugent of the New York Times stated the situation succinctly: “Having set his own standards, Alfred Hitchcock must be judged by them; and, by them, his Jamaica Inn… is merely journeyman melodrama.” While reasonably competent, the film shows little of Hitchcock’s trademark directorial style; unlike most of the entries in his distinctive oeuvre, this one could easily be taken as the work of someone (anyone) else.

Indeed, as many have noted, Jamaica Inn is actually a “Charles Laughton picture” rather than a “Hitchcock picture”, given Laughton’s role as both producer and lead actor. He has great fun playing the corpulent baddie here, slyly fooling everyone around him, and coming across as simultaneously grotesque and calculating.

Equally impressive is beautiful Maureen O’Hara (in her first significant film role), who displays every ounce of her Irish spunk — no simpering early-19th-century maiden she! Her Mary is refreshingly fearless, refusing to be cowed.

I especially love the scene near the end of the film, when she resolutely ties the top strands of her dress back together after nearly being raped.

Less successful, however, is the overall arc of the story, which is unevenly paced and lacks narrative punch; we should care much more about what’s going on than we do. Part of the problem is that essential character motivations are left unclear: for instance, while we understand that Mary’s Aunt Patience (Marie Ney) is firmly attached to her no-good husband, we never discover why:

And, unless I missed something, we never learn why Pengallan holds the sway he does over Joss — nor why this must be (conveniently) kept a secret from everyone else in the gang. Overall, Jamaica Inn remains one of Hitchcock’s lesser outings, and is not must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Charles Laughton’s hammy performance as Pengallan (those eyebrows!)
  
• Beautiful Maureen O’Hara as Mary
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though fans of Hitchcock or Du Maurier will certainly be curious to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article